|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INVESTIGATING THE
CONTENT OF CORE
CONSTRUCTS
|
|
|
Richard
J. Butler |
|
|
Leeds Child &
Adolescent Mental Health Service
Department of Clinical
Psychology, Lea House, Leeds, UK
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
Kelly
recognised core construing as
fundamental in maintaining a sense of identity. Given core constructs
theoretically lay in a super-ordinate position to other constructs it
is assumed
they are limited in number. Operating at a low level of awareness, few
empirical investigations have been undertaken to understand the content
of core
constructs. This study factor analysed the most frequently elicited
core
constructs with 419 adults. Four clear factors – labelled making sense,
relatedness, achievement and individuality – emerged and
these are
discussed in
relation to how people choose to act in order to maximise an
elaboration
of their
core construing.
Key words: Core constructs,
content, factor analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION
In creating the Theory of Personal
Constructs, Kelly
(1955) suggested that individuals, like scientists, reach out to impose
meaning
on events with which they are confronted. As such events necessarily
include
the person’s own notion of self, Kelly characteristically proposed that
each
person constructs the dimensions of their own identity. He employed the
notion
of core construing to describe higher order constructs that govern the
maintenance of a person’s identity. Such constructs lie fundamentally
at the
heart of the individual’s sense of self, guiding each anticipatory
choice,
action and stance they may take. Core constructs therefore essentially
determine existence, with Rowe (2003) suggesting that they are
concerned with
survival, enabling the person to hold dear fundamental notions they
have of their
self. Compared to constructs at a lower level, core constructs appear
to remain
invariably stable leading individuals to determinedly preserve a core
belief
about self, even in the face of invalidating evidence, rather than seek
an
alternative construction as a good scientist might.
Because of the possibility of profound
threat if invalidated, core constructs, according to Leitner &
Thomas
(2003), exist at a low level of awareness. Although not readily
accessible, we
come to understand the world through the lens of our core constructs
with
little conscious awareness (McWilliams, 2004). We rarely appeal to core
constructs, yet it might be argued that all our actions ultimately seek
to
validate or avoid invalidation of a core construct.
Within the context of the organisational
corollary, core constructs are considered as super-ordinate, having a
wide
range of convenience encapsulating the raft of self descriptions and
actions a
person characteristically accounts for in terms of their self (Stefan,
1977;
Butt, Burr & Epting, 1997). Almost by definition core constructs,
being at
the pinnacle of a hierarchy, are theoretically few in number.
Interestingly
Rowe (2003) found, to her surprise, that not only is there a limited
number of
core constructs, but they also tend to have a degree of universality.
Hinkle
(1965)
devised a hierarchical method, later termed laddering by Bannister
& Mair
(1968), to elicit ‘super-ordinate constructs of the preferred self’.
Although
there are no formal instructions for the process, laddering essentially
hinges
on a ‘form of recursive questioning’ to elicit higher order
implications of a
construct (Neimeyer et al., 2001). Fransella & Dalton (1990)
suggest that
laddering is “no more and no less than asking the question ‘why?’“ a
person
would prefer to be described by one pole of a personal construct rather
than
the other. Alternatively, once a person has identified a preferred pole
of a
construct, Neimeyer et al. (2001) suggest asking ‘what is the advantage
of
that?’ In adapting the process for children and young people Butler
& Green
(1998) suggest laddering may be undertaken with just one pole of a
construct
with less intimidating questioning such as ‘how come that is important
for
you?’
Laddering self referenced constructs
offers
a befitting means of tapping into the hierarchical structure of self
and
eliciting core constructs. Revealing core constructs requires
reflection. Fransella
(2003) and Fransella et al (2003) suggest successful laddering requires
the
listener to suspend their own construing (tempering their own
assumptions) and
seek to subsume the other person’s construing (accepting their
construing). It
is in the process of laddering that one gets closest to an experience
of being
almost a part of the other person. Laddering is seen by many
practitioners as
possibly the most powerful procedure for eliciting the values a person
holds
and the meanings with which they organise their world. Empirical
investigation
has recently found validation for the procedure with ‘laddered’
super-ordinate
constructs found to differ from sub-ordinate constructs in terms of
structure,
process and content in ways that accord with theoretically derived
assumptions
(Neimeyer et al., 2001).
Despite their universality, the content
of
core constructs remains open to conjecture. Rowe contends that a person
either
experiences a sense of existence in terms of relationship to others
with an
accompanying fear of abandonment and rejection, or experiences
existence in
terms of a sense of order, achievement, clarity and control with the
accompanying fear of chaos. Psychologists with alternative theoretical
perspectives, such as Tafarodi & Swann (1995), echo this stance,
suggesting
two core dimensions - self liking and self competence. Self liking,
which is
socially dependent, draws on Cooley’s early theoretical proposition
being
formed through a process whereby one comes to view oneself as
represented in
the evaluative reactions of others (Cooley, 1902). This internalisation
of the
others’ perspective gives rise to constructs relating to social
approval and
fear of rejection. Self competence, on the other hand, relates to the
sense of
oneself as capable, effective and in control, judged against some
internal
standard.
This study sought to develop an
understanding of the essence of core constructs in a non-clinical
representative adult population through two linked processes. Initially
a broad
sample of core constructs was elicited from a group of non-clinical
adults through
each laddering 5 constructs. From this sample the 25 most frequently
elicited
core constructs were collated into a short questionnaire called ‘Self
Reflection’. The second phase of the study sought to explore common
themes
within the core constructs through factor analysis of the completed
Self
Reflection measure with another large, but different, group of
non-clinical
adults.
METHOD
Original elicitation
Sixty one non-clinical adults (age range
17
– 63) were invited to undertake a laddering exercise to elicit their
core
constructs. They were informed that the aim of the exercise was to
understand
how people thought about themselves and that the process would involve
a set of
repeated questions known as laddering. As arguably all aspects of a
person’s
functioning are considered to relate to their presentation of self, the
starting point for laddering appears largely immaterial. Neimeyer et
al. (2001)
employed, for example, recently seen films and family members as
alternative
starting points in their research on laddering. In this study, each
person was
invited to think of three self descriptions (‘could you tell me three
ways you
might typically describe yourself), a valued possession and an activity
they
enjoyed as starting points. For each starting point laddering consisted
of
asking ‘how come that is important for you?’ and with each consequently
elicited statement, a similar question was asked to reveal more
super-ordinate
constructs. Unlike traditional laddering, where individuals are asked
for a
contrast and their preferred position on the bipolar construct, this
study
laddered from just the emergent pole. Questioning in terms of ‘how come
that is
important for you?’ continued until the person felt unable to produce
any
further elaboration. The person was then asked to ladder from another
starting
point until the 5 ladders were complete.
In line with Neimeyer et al. (2001) the
highest
(most super-ordinate) statement on each ladder was selected. Eleven
people were
unable to complete all 5 ladders (9 people providing 4 and 2 people
providing 3
each) leaving a pool of 292 core statements. Those with similar meaning
and
terminology were grouped together and shortened to a few key words with
the
most frequently elicited statements compiled to form the items for a
short
questionnaire called ‘Self Reflection’.
Measure
The 25 most frequently elicited core
statements
were randomly ordered to form the items for the Self Reflection
questionnaire. Participants
were informed that the questionnaire was part of a survey designed to
help
understand how people make sense of themselves. They were asked to
check
against each item ‘according to how important the statement is for you’
using a
5 point Likert scale anchored with ‘0’ (not at all) and ‘4’ (very
much). Ratings
for each respondent on all 25 items were entered on to SPSS (version
14) for
later analysis. The study was approved by the ethics committee at the Institute of Psychological Sciences, University of Leeds.
Participants
419 adults, none of whom participated in
the elicitation phase, with a mean age of 41.15 yrs, (s.d. = 10.6) and
range 17
– 65 years participated. The population sample comprised of 79 (18.9%)
male and
340 (81.1%) female, with 340 (81.1%) British white; 14 (3.3%) Asian; 12
(2.9%)
Black British; 10 (2.4%) White European; and 43 (10.3%) from other
ethnic
backgrounds, which corresponds well with the 2001 British census. All
geographical
areas of the United
Kingdom were
covered
with Yorkshire (106), the North East (66), East Anglia (52), London (46), and the South west (33) providing the most
respondents.
RESULTS
Decisions regarding factor analysis were
undertaken in line with Finch & West (1997) and Fabrigar et al.
(1999). Through
selecting the most frequently elicited core constructs, as outlined
above, the extent
of variables (25) in the domain of interest was assumed broad enough to
uncover
important common factors. Bartlett’s
test of Sphericity was highly significant (.000) thus suggesting
the data was appropriate for factor analysis. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
Measure of
sampling adequacy was 0.841, which, being far greater than the
recommended
value of 0.5 (Hutcheson & Sofroniou, 1999) suggests patterns of
correlation
are relatively compact, thus yielding distinct and reliable factors.
In line with Fabrigar et al. (1999) the
principal
axis method of extraction (in SPSS version 14) was employed in order to
arrive
at a realistic and parsimonious conceptualisation of the set of
measures. Such
factor analysis is data driven with few restrictions placed on the
patterns of
relations between the common factors and the measured variables.
Through
examining the scree plot (with a cut-off at the point of inflexion of
the
curve) and restricting the number of factors with % of variance >5,
four factors
were extracted.
As it might theoretically be expected
that
factors are related, an oblique rotation, which provides more accurate
and
realistic representations of how constructs are related to each other
(Fabrigar
et al., 1999), utilising Promax with Kaiser normalisation was employed.
The
first factor accounted for 23.3% of the variance. The pattern matrix
and
structure matrix produced the same representation, so the Structure
matrix
(which takes into account the relationship between factors) is
presented in
Table 1 with factor loadings of >0.4 displayed in bold. The factor
correlation matrix suggested a .476 correlation between factors 1 and 3.
Table 1. The four
factors yielded by the principal axis factoring and Promax rotation
(factor
loadings >0.4 in bold)
|
Factor
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
% variance
|
23.30%
|
10.97%
|
8.12%
|
5.24%
|
being able to
understand
|
.735
|
.157
|
.213
|
.207
|
feel capable
|
.732
|
.227
|
.289
|
.164
|
| fair
mindedness and justice |
.566
|
.134
|
.327
|
.209
|
being
understood
|
.564
|
.318
|
.346
|
.197
|
competency
|
.563
|
.128
|
.339
|
.182
|
being genuine
/ authentic
|
.536
|
.026
|
.358
|
.180
|
security
|
.475
|
.423
|
.274
|
.001
|
feel healthy
|
.355
|
.081
|
.293
|
-.017
|
avoid criticism
|
.114
|
.750
|
.119
|
.119
|
meet others’
approval
|
.173
|
.705
|
.206
|
.151
|
avoid rejection
|
.234
|
.660
|
.241
|
.080
|
pleasing others
|
.252
|
.598
|
.270
|
.007
|
conforming
|
.043
|
.492
|
.189
|
-.026
|
belonging
|
.256
|
.443
|
.299
|
-.081
|
achieving
success
|
.401
|
.214
|
.699
|
.308
|
a challenge
|
.375
|
-.002
|
.629
|
.331
|
recognition
|
.301
|
.335
|
.615
|
.198
|
power
|
.089
|
.365
|
.530
|
.352
|
being
competitive
|
.169
|
.275
|
.521
|
.352
|
being in
control
|
.294
|
.364
|
.443
|
.218
|
being different
|
.308
|
.098
|
.395
|
.630
|
| anti-authoritarian
/ rebellious |
.063
|
.104
|
.212
|
.627
|
independence
|
.380
|
-.004
|
.479
|
.512
|
being an
individual
|
.318
|
-.023
|
.419
|
.476
|
having freedom
|
.347
|
-.018
|
.322
|
.356
|
Factor
1 appears to consist of core
constructs concerned with making sense, where a person strives for
understanding, justice, authenticity and coherence in their construing
of the
world and their self. Factor 2
consists of core constructs concerning relatedness
where a person’s sense of self, as contended by Rowe (2003) is embedded
in the
notion of relationship with others.
Factor 3, which is linked to factor 1, is
concerned with achievement and mastery which resonates with Rowe’s
notion of existence
in terms of achievement. Finally, factor
4 links core constructs concerned with
individuality where a person’s sense of self is bound up with notions
of
non-conformity, uniqueness, independence and anti-authoritarianism.
DISCUSSION
This study is one of the first to
empirically seek an identification of the content of core constructs.
It has
fundamentally drawn on the practice of laddering (Hinkle, 1965) to
elicit a
range of core constructs from a broad range of adults. Although
Neimeyer and
colleagues (Neimeyer et al., 2001) have endorsed this approach as a
valid means
of identifying core constructs, there is a possibility that other
elicitation
procedures might reveal different core constructs with consequently a
different
factor structure. However, if Kelly is correct in his assertion of the
robust,
maintaining nature of core constructs it would prove enlightening in
future
studies to explore if indeed this is the case.
The four main factors to emerge from the
principal
axis extraction with Promax rotation indicate, as Rowe (2003) suggests,
the
finite nature of core constructs. However the limit of two core
constructs,
theoretically proposed by Rowe, seems unsupported by the empirical
evidence.
Although the four factors appear to include the two core dimensions
suggested
by Rowe (2003) – a sense of existence in terms of relationship to
others with
an encompassing a fear of rejection and a sense of existence in terms
achievement and control – the
content of core construing appears much
broader.
A determined desire to make sense through striving for understanding,
justice,
authenticity and coherence plus a sense of individuality where a
person’s sense
of self is bound up with notions of non-conformity, uniqueness,
independence
and anti-authoritarianism, also appear to be fundamental dimensions
with
regards to understanding core construing.
Labelling factors from is invariably
compounded by pre-determined ideas. However an attempt to conceptualise
the four
factors was undertaken with respect to terminology that adults
typically employ
in relation to their self. In the following discussion, the ‘self ….’
labels,
written in bold type, were all taken from a list of self referenced
constructs
elicited from over 1300 British adults aged 17-65 (Butler & Gasson,
2004).
The four factors might thus be understood in terms of:
Factor 1: Making
sense
Here core construing rotates around a
person’s sense of their capacity to impose meaning and establish
coherence
leading to a sense of self competence.
They evaluate themselves in
terms of their scientific pursuit, searching for validation through
greater
understanding and justice, leading to competence and capability. Such
core
construing embodies Kelly’s fundamental postulate, whereby a person
strives for
personal meaning. Although all actions, according to Kelly, are
scientific in
the sense of enabling the person to check their theories, if a person’s
core
construing resonates with notions of competence, that person’s actions
also
test their sense of self as a good scientist.
Factor 2: Relatedness
Here a person’s sense of self, as
contended
by Rowe (2003) is embedded in the notion of relationship with others,
particularly in terms of the search for approval and avoidance of
criticism or
rejection, leading to social conformity and self
respect. The person, as it were, trades in the sociality corollary,
seeking
to detect the opinion of others about the self and incorporate these
into the
sense of self. A person’s theory of self is thus tested through actions
that
anticipate favourable reactions from the other, either real or
imagined. This idea
is based fundamentally on Cooley’s notion of reflected appraisal
(1902), later
elaborated by Leitner & Thomas (2003), in which they suggest it
makes
little sense to consider the self apart from the social milieu in which
the
individual operates thus contending that the self is best understood as
a
social construction. Through employing the core construct of self respect, people make choices dependent
on the imagined effect their actions may have upon another’s mind. They
are
likely to seek out the company of other people, build friendships,
enjoy social
engagements, value trustworthiness, support, help and care for others
and have
a sense of humour.
Factor 3: Achievement
This resonates with Rowe’s second aspect
of
core construing, which relates to a sense of existence in terms of
achievement where
a person seeks challenges, success and power. Sport, academic pursuit
and work
tasks for example offer an individual a context in which, through their
competitiveness
and consequent recognition, they can test their sense of self
determination. Taking the perspective of William James and
more latterly Harter (1999) a person’s accomplishments are largely
evaluated in
relation to an internal frame of reference or personal standard,
although
validation may invariably arise through other people’s acknowledgement
of
performance or a recognition of accomplishments through awards, passing
a test,
project or exam, winning a competition, gaining a bonus, achieving a
promotion
and so forth. From the factor correlation matrix, there is evidence
that this
factor of achievement shares some psychological territory with the
first factor
of making sense. Although the two may be related, ‘making sense’
appears to
lean towards grappling with an understanding of the world whereas
‘achievement’
seems to reflect a person’s need to impose themselves and control the
events
before them.
Factor 4: Individuality
The fourth factor suggests a person’s
sense
of self is bound up with notions of non-conformity,
anti-authoritarianism,
rebelliousness and independence leading to a sense of self
reliance. Here the person chooses, in a Kellyan sense, to act
with creativity, rebellion, impartiality, unconventionality, dissent,
maverick
intent and possibly eccentricity in anticipating the greatest
possibility for
elaboration of their sense of individuality.
Because core constructs play such a
fundamental part for the sense of self, through organising actions
towards
validation of a person’s being, it might be expected, as Kelly
suggested, that
experiences which fail to validate the self would lead to emotion.
McCoy (1977),
for example, suggests love and happiness result from validation of core
construing. Thus it might be hypothesised that such feelings emerge
when we
meet others’ approval (where self respect is important), act in an
idiosyncratic manner (if self reliance is important) or find we are
able to
understand something that previously proved difficult (if self
competence is
important). In contrast McCoy suggests invalidation of core construing
leads to
sadness, the feeling we experience when for example, we are criticised
(where
self respect is important) or fail an important task (where self
determination
is important). The experience of guilt is
also explained
in terms of core construing and, according to Kelly (1955), arises when
a
person acts in a fashion at odds with what they would anticipate about
themselves. Thus failing to put effort in to a task (if self
determination is
important) or conforming to other people’s wishes (if self reliance is
important) would dislodge the person from their core role structure.
It is likely that a person’s notion of
self
is maintained through more than one core construct and the variety of
roles a
person adopts may serve to validate different core constructs. Thus a
person may
primarily seek validation for a sense of self determination whilst at
work,
self respect when out with friends and self competence when trying to
figure
out the intricacies of a new hobby. Mair (1977) suggested the metaphor
of a
‘community of selves’ to account for this experience and to help
articulate the
complicated nature of our role relationships. At another level any
behaviour
may serve to validate more than one core construct at any one time.
Thus a
person might best anticipate the greatest possibility for the
elaboration of
both their self respect and self determination by choosing to work
diligently
on a project at work.
It is interesting to postulate that a
reliance on the validation of only one core construct may create
psychological vulnerability
for the individual. Where a person is dependent on one core construct
to
maintain their sense of identity, they may appear especially distressed
should
they experience invalidation. Thus should a person for whom self
respect
dominates their sense of identity, experience criticism, they might
endure an
acute sense of persecution. A person for whom achievement dominates
their
anticipatory validation, might experience acute frustration should they
experience a situation where they are unable to compete, their power is
taken
away from them or they are prevented from asserting control.
Interestingly
individuals may feel in conflict if their actions validate one core
construct
but invalidates another. Thus tidying up a room because of visitors may
validate self respect (because of a need to avoid unwanted criticism),
yet
invalidate a sense of self reliance (because of a need for
individuality). Such
hypotheses await empirical investigation.
As Hinkle (1965) originally mooted, an
awareness of core constructs is essential for understanding the world
of
another person, and ourselves. As core constructs operate at a low
level of
awareness, eliciting a person’s fundamental sense of self may be the
first time
that person comes to understand the nature of their actions. By drawing
on the
sociality corollary in understanding the client’s core construing,
therapists
of the Kellyan tradition have an important opportunity to enhance the
therapeutic venture for both client and therapist.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am indebted to Joanne Robinson for her
adept and supportive influence particularly with regards to the
statistical
decision making and analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
REFERENCES
Bannister, D. & Mair, J. M. M.
(1968) The Evaluation of Personal Constructs. London:
Academic
Press.
Butler, R.J. & Green, D. (1998). The
Child Within: The Exploration of Personal Construct Theory with Young
People. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Butler, R.J. & Gasson, S.L. (2004). The Self
Image Profile for Adults. London:
Harcourt
Assessment
Butt, T. W., Burr, V. & Epting, F.
(1997) Core construing: Discovery or invention? In R. A. Neimeyer &
G. J.
Neimeyer (Eds.), Advances in Personal
Construct Theory: Volume 4. (pp. 39-62). New York:
Springer.
Cooley, C.H. (1902). Human
nature and the social order. New York:
Scribner
Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T.,
MacCallum,
R.C., & Strahan, E.J. (1999) Evaluating the use of exploratory
factor
analysis in psychological research. Psychological
Methods, 4, 272-299.
Finch, J.F., & West, S.G. (1997).
The
investigation of personality structure: statistical models. Journal
of Research in Personality, 31,
439-485.
Fransella, F. & Dalton, P. (1990). Personal Construct Counselling in Action. London:
Sage
Fransella, F. (2003) Some skills and
tools
for personal construct practitioners. In F. Fransella (ed.) International
Handbook of Personal Construct
Psychology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Fransella, F., Bell, R.
&
Bannister, D. (2003). A Manual for
Repertory Grid Technique (2nd edition). Chichester: Wiley
& Sons.
Harter, S. (1999). The
Construction of the Self: A Developmental Perspective. New York:
Guildford Press.
Hinkle, D. (1965) The
change of personal constructs from the viewpoint of a theory of
construct implications. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Ohio State University.
Hutcheson, G. & Sofroniou, N.
(1999). The Multivariate Social Scientist. London:
Sage.
Kelly, G.A. (1955). The
psychology of personal constructs. (2 Volumes) New York:
Norton.
Leitner, L. & Thomas, J. (2003).
Experiential
personal construct psychotherapy. In F. Fransella (Ed.) International
Handbook of Personal Construct Psychology. Chichester: John
Wiley &
Sons.
McCoy, M.M. (1977). A reconstruction of
emotion. In D. Bannister (Ed.) New
Perspectives in Personal Construct Theory. London:
Academic
Press.
McWilliams, S.A. (2004). On further reflection. Personal
Construct Theory & Practice, 1, 1-7
Mair, J.M.M. (1977). The community of
self.
In D. Bannister (Ed.) New Perspectives in
Personal Construct Theory. London:
Academic Press.
Neimeyer, R.A., Anderson,
A. &
Stockton, L. (2001) Snakes versus ladders: a validation of laddering
technique
as a measure of hierarchical structure. Journal
of Constructivist Psychology, 14, 85-106.
Rowe, D. (2003). Personal construct
psychology
and me. In F. Fransella (Ed.) International
Handbook of Personal Construct Psychology. Chichester: John
Wiley &
Sons.
Stefan, C. (1977). Core role theory and
implications. In D. Bannister (Ed.), New
perspectives in personal construct theory (p. 281-298). London:
Academic
Press.
Tafarodi, R.W. & Swann, W.B. (1995).
Self liking and self competence as dimensions of global self esteem:
initial
validation of a measure. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 65, 322-342 |
|
|
|
|
|
ABOUT THE
AUTHOR
Richard
J. Butler, PhD. has maintained a clinical
interest
in PCP for 30 years having worked alongside Don Bannister at High Royds Hospital in Yorkshire. He has a special
interest in applying PCP to work with children, publishing ‘The Child
Within’
with Dave Green. More recently he has developed an interest in self
construing,
publishing the Self Image Profiles, scales based on PCP principles. He
currently works as a Consultant Clinical Psychologist with Leeds Child
&
Adolescent Mental Health Service, based at the Department of Clinical
Psychology, Lea House, Whackhouse Lane, Yeadon, Leeds, LS19 7XY
E-mail: richard.butler@leedsmh.nhs.uk
|
|
|
|
|
|
REFERENCE
Butler, R. J.
(2006). Investigating the content of core constructs. Personal
Construct Theory & Practice, 3, 27-33.
(Retrieved from http://www.pcp-net.org/journal/pctp06/butler06.html)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Received: 5 July 2006 – Accepted: 13 November 2006 –
Published: 14 November 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|